What used to be the consensus on getting Vintage cards signed?

[drcy]

As a photograph guy and an autograph guy, I think the two should be kept separate.

If you have a high-quality original famous-photographer photo of Willie Mays or some celebrity (including modern) you don't want it autographed, especially in sharpie on the image. Those are two different genres, and you want the photo in its original state.

There are old photos-- cabinet cards, Hollywood portraits-- that are already signed, from back in the old days. But that's much different than getting a photo signed today.

I remember buying a Smokey Joe Wood signed photo. The seller didn't realize the original Conlon photo was much worth more than the signature itself. It was from the collection of old-time autograph collector Jeff Morey so was signed many years earlier.

For game-used bat collectors, some won't want them autographed or, if they are autographed, the autograph to be vintage. They don't want a 2015 Hank Aaron sharpie signature on a 1960s game-used bat. I know of collectors who remove authentic signatures from their game used bats. But tastes and practices vary amongst collectors.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by drcy

For game-used bat collectors, some won't want them autographed

I wouldn't get a game-used or game-worn anything signed.

To me it would destroy the "integrity" of the piece because it wasn't signed when it was actually used or worn in the game.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

My old friend, Dr. Walt Brown (Not related to this topic but he is a leading Kennedy assassination expert) used to be a contrarian and get all the old cards signed instead of the 8 X 10's which were so prevalent.

His logic, which was proven correct, was to get those cards signed since no one else was doing that.

And no, I have no idea what, if any of the vintage signed cards he still has.

Rich

Rich, as a side note, I believe I have one of your friends Books on the Kennedy assassination, as I love reading all about it. I would have to agree with his logic though, to get the cards signed at least. From my perspective, I think if I was collecting back then, I would've probably tried to own two copies of cards. One signed, and one unsigned. That way I can have the best of both worlds! As to your second point, one can only wonder.

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

I wouldn't get a game-used or game-worn anything signed.

To me it would destroy the "integrity" of the piece because it wasn't signed when it was actually used or worn in the game.

With the Game Worn items I would tend to agree, unless if the item in question was signed almost immediately after the game ended!